in my opinion, is that tosses are big for television. It makes for good tension, everyone is focused on that coin when it's in the air and the winning captain's decision and so on.
Test cricket per say is losing its identity. Change is the only thing which is constant.
a simple formula starting from first test match in a test series, the decision should be to the visiting team and next match to the host team and so on. Alternating the decision between visiting and host team.
it sounds good at first but what this will do is force the home country to create dead pitches, since creating a pitch with any life will straight away give advantage to the away team who get to choose to to bowl first on seamer friendly wickets and bat first on spin friendly wickets.
Besides it adds extra level of interest because each team has to adapt to different conditions everywhere making the game more interesting.
So the visiting teams must be the ones to choose whether they want to bat or bowl first? I think there is some merit to this argument since the home team will benefit from their home support.
[quote author=Rowe992 link=topic=100000.msg653866#msg653866 date=1441298011]
So the visiting teams must be the ones to choose whether they want to bat or bowl first? I think there is some merit to this argument since the home team will benefit from their home support.
[/quote]
I am sure most would argue that the biggest benefit of playing at home is familiarity with the pitch and conditions. Home field support is an ancillary benefit. I'll run the numbers for home/away sides winning the toss and post them here to see what they reveal.
: